Afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (SPEARHEAD-1): an international, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afamitresgene autoleucel (afami-cel) showed acceptable safety and promising efficacy in a phase 1 trial (NCT03132922). The aim of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of afami-cel for the treatment of patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing advanced synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma. METHODS: SPEARHEAD-1 was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial done across 23 sites in Canada, the USA, and Europe. The trial included three cohorts, of which the main investigational cohort (cohort 1) is reported here. Cohort 1 included patients with HLA-A*02, aged 16-75 years, with metastatic or unresectable synovial sarcoma or myxoid round cell liposarcoma (confirmed by cytogenetics) expressing MAGE-A4, and who had received at least one previous line of anthracycline-containing or ifosfamide-containing chemotherapy. Patients received a single intravenous dose of afami-cel (transduced dose range 1·0 × 109-10·0 × 109 T cells) after lymphodepletion. The primary endpoint was overall response rate in cohort 1, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received afami-cel). Adverse events, including those of special interest (cytokine release syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and neurotoxicity), were monitored and are reported for the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04044768; recruitment is closed and follow-up is ongoing for cohorts 1 and 2, and recruitment is open for cohort 3. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 27, 2021, 52 patients with cytogenetically confirmed synovial sarcoma (n=44) and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (n=8) were enrolled and received afami-cel in cohort 1. Patients were heavily pre-treated (median three [IQR two to four] previous lines of systemic therapy). Median follow-up time was 32·6 months (IQR 29·4-36·1). Overall response rate was 37% (19 of 52; 95% CI 24-51) overall, 39% (17 of 44; 24-55) for patients with synovial sarcoma, and 25% (two of eight; 3-65) for patients with myxoid round cell liposarcoma. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 37 (71%) of 52 of patients (one grade 3 event). Cytopenias were the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (lymphopenia in 50 [96%], neutropenia 44 [85%], leukopenia 42 [81%] of 52 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Afami-cel treatment resulted in durable responses in heavily pre-treated patients with HLA-A*02 and MAGE-A4-expressing synovial sarcoma. This study shows that T-cell receptor therapy can be used to effectively target solid tumours and provides rationale to expand this approach to other solid malignancies. FUNDING: Adaptimmune.

Clinical benefit and fragility evaluation of systemic therapy trials for advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of systemic anticancer therapies can be unclear despite positive trials, and outcomes may not translate to real-world practice. This study evaluated the benefit of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treatments using the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) v1.1 and measured the robustness of STS trial results using Fragility Index (FI). METHODS: Database searches for adult phase II or III trials in advanced STS (January 1998-December 2023) were performed. Therapies with trial outcomes that met the criteria for MCBS were scored 1-5 (≥4 represents substantial clinical benefit). For randomized clinical trials with positive time-to-event endpoints, the number of additional events that would render results nonsignificant, FI, was calculated and expressed as a proportion of the experimental arm size (fragility quotient [FQ]). Higher FI/FQ implies more robust results. RESULTS: Among 194 trials, 19 (9.8%) were phase III. Most phase II trials (146/175; 83.4%) had single-arm or non-comparative design. Trials that were eligible for MCBS scoring (n = 78; 40.2%) evaluated 56 different agents/regimens. Median MCBS score was 2. Only three agents/regimens (all cytotoxic therapies) had an MCBS score ≥4. Among 47 randomized clinical trials, 16 (8 phase II; 8 phase III) trials had positive outcomes. Median FI was 7 (range, 2-52) and 10 trials (62.5%) had an FQ < 10%, with median of 7% (range, 1%-59%). CONCLUSIONS: Most systemic therapies in STS trials did not confer substantial clinical benefit per European Society of Medical Oncology-MCBS. Additionally, positive randomized trials were often fragile. Novel STS therapy trials should use clinically meaningful endpoints and real-world efficacy confirmation is essential, especially for less robust trials.

A tailored phase I-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey to capture the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patient perspectives are fundamental to defining tolerability of investigational anti-neoplastic therapies in clinical trials. Phase I trials present a unique challenge in designing tools for efficiently collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) given the difficulty of anticipating adverse events of relevance. However, phase I trials also offer an opportunity for investigators to optimize drug dosing based on tolerability for future larger-scale trials and in eventual clinical practice. Existing tools for comprehensively capturing PROs are generally cumbersome and are not routinely used in phase I trials. METHODS: Here, we describe the creation of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE for collecting patients' perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in phase I trials in oncology. RESULTS: We describe our stepwise approach to condensing the original 78-symptom library into a modified 30 term core list of symptoms which can be efficiently applied. We further show that our tailored survey aligns with phase I trialists' perspectives on symptoms of relevance. CONCLUSIONS: This tailored survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population. We provide recommendations for future work aimed at integrating this survey into clinical practice.

A Phase 1B open-label study of gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents for patients with advanced solid tumours and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsor's portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

Phase 1 study of GSK3368715, a type I PRMT inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: GSK3368715, a first-in-class, reversible inhibitor of type I protein methyltransferases (PRMTs) demonstrated anticancer activity in preclinical studies. This Phase 1 study (NCT03666988) evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of GSK3368715 in adults with advanced-stage solid tumors. METHODS: In part 1, escalating doses of oral once-daily GSK3368715 (50, 100, and 200 mg) were evaluated. Enrollment was paused at 200 mg following a higher-than-expected incidence of thromboembolic events (TEEs) among the first 19 participants, resuming under a protocol amendment starting at 100 mg. Part 2 (to evaluate preliminary efficacy) was not initiated. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in 3/12 (25%) patients at 200 mg. Nine of 31 (29%) patients across dose groups experienced 12 TEEs (8 grade 3 events and 1 grade 5 pulmonary embolism). Best response achieved was stable disease, occurring in 9/31 (29%) patients. Following single and repeat dosing, GSK3368715 maximum plasma concentration was reached within 1 h post dosing. Target engagement was observed in the blood, but was modest and variable in tumor biopsies at 100 mg. CONCLUSION: Based on higher-than-expected incidence of TEEs, limited target engagement at lower doses, and lack of observed clinical efficacy, a risk/benefit analysis led to early study termination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03666988.

Evaluation of the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events on Phase I clinical trials using PRO-CTCAE.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event (AE) reporting in early-phase clinical trials is essential in determining the tolerability of experimental anticancer therapies. The patient-reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) evaluates AE components such as severity and interference in daily life. The aim of this study was to correlate the grade of clinician-reported AEs with patients' reported experience of these toxicities using PRO-CTCAE. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours enrolled on Phase I clinical trials were surveyed using the PRO-CTCAE. Symptomatic AEs were recorded by physicians using the CTCAE. A logistic regression model was used to assess associations between CTCAE grade and PRO responses. RESULTS: Of 219 evaluable patients, 81 experienced a high-grade (3/4) clinician-reported symptom, and of these, only 32 (40%) and 26 (32%) patients concordantly reported these as either severe or very severe, and interfering with daily life either 'quite a bit' or 'very much', respectively. Of the 137 patients who experienced a low-grade (1/2) clinician-reported AE as their worst symptom, 98 (72%) and 118 (86%) patients concordantly reported these as either mild-moderate severity and minimally interfering with daily life, respectively. There was a statistically significant association between clinician-reported AE grade and interference. Interference scores were also associated with dose reductions. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore patient-reported severity and interference from symptomatic toxicities and compare clinician grading of the same toxicities. The study provided further evidence to support the added value of the PRO-CTCAE in Phase I oncology trials, which would make AE reporting patient-centred. Further work is needed to determine how this would affect the assessment of tolerability.

Canadian consensus on TRK-inhibitor therapy for NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma.

Malignant sarcomas are rare accounting for <1% of all adult solid malignancies and approximately 11% to 13% of all pediatric malignancies. TRK-inhibitors have demonstrated robust and long-lasting responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors, including sarcoma. Access to these agents in many jurisdictions such as Canada remains limited. We undertook a modified Delphi consensus to articulate and convey the clinical importance of these agents for the Canadian sarcoma community. A systematic search of published and presented literature was conducted to identify clinical trials reporting outcomes on the use of TRK-inhibitors in relapsed/refractory NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma. Three main consensus questions were identified: (a) is there currently an unmet clinical need for systemic therapy options in relapsed/refractory sarcoma? (b) do TRK-inhibitors confer a clinical benefit to patients with NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma? (c) do phase I/II basket trials provide sufficient evidence to justify funding of TRK-inhibitors in NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma? Response rates to the first and second surveys were 57% (n = 30) and 42% (n = 22), respectively. There was strong agreement among the Canadian sarcoma community that there was unmet clinical need for effective systemic therapy options in relapsed/refractory sarcoma, that TRK-inhibitors are a safe and effective treatment option for patients with NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma, and that available phase I/II basket trials provide sufficient evidence to support funding of these agents in relapsed/refractory NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma. TRK-inhibitors are a safe and effective systemic therapy option for patients with relapsed/refractory NTRK fusion-positive sarcoma.

Health-related quality of life and pain with selinexor in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma.

Objective: Compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of selinexor versus placebo in patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Materials & methods: HRQoL was assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Results were reported from baseline to day 169 (where exposure to treatment was maximized while maintaining adequate sample size). Results: Pain scores worsened for placebo versus selinexor across all postbaseline visits, although differences in HRQoL at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms deteriorated over time. Conclusion: Patients treated with selinexor reported lower rates and slower worsening of pain compared with patients who received placebo.

Lay abstract The goal of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with advanced unresectable dedifferentiated liposarcoma treated with selinexor compared with those treated with placebo. HRQoL was measured prior to treatment initiation and at the first day of each cycle of their treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Pain scores worsened for placebo compared with selinexor across all visits after treatment, but differences at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms worsened over time reflecting the progressive disease burden in this patient population. As pain is one of the most devastating symptoms associated with advanced and progressing cancers, the significant reduction in pain in the selinexor arm, according to patient perception, represent a relevant added value of this drug in dedifferentiated liposarcoma.

Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator (FACT-ICM): A toxicity subscale to measure quality of life in patients with cancer who are treated with ICMs.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint modulators (ICMs) have their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured using general patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools. To the authors' knowledge, no instrument has been developed to date specifically for patients treated with ICMs. The objective of the current study was to develop a toxicity subscale PRO instrument for patients treated with ICMs to assess HRQOL. METHODS: Input was collected from a systematic review as well as patients and physicians experienced with ICM treatment. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to evaluate the qualitative data obtained from patient focus groups and interviews, which informed an initial list of items that described ICM side effects and their impact on HRQOL. These inputs informed item generation and/or reduction to develop a toxicity subscale. RESULTS: Focus groups and individual interviews with 37 ICM-treated patients generated an initial list of 176 items. After a first round of item reduction that produced a shortened list of 76 items, 16 physicians who care for patients who are treated with ICMs were surveyed with a list of 49 patient-reported side effects and 11 physicians participated in follow-up interviews. A second round of item reduction was informed by the physician responses to produce a list of 25 items. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this 25-item list is the first HRQOL-focused toxicity subscale for patients treated with ICMs and was developed in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines, which prioritize patient input in developing PRO tools. The subscale will be combined with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) to form the FACT-ICM. Prior to recommending the formal use of this PRO instrument, the authors will evaluate its validity and reliability in longitudinal studies involving substantially more patients.

A phase 1 study of the MDM2 antagonist RO6839921, a pegylated prodrug of idasanutlin, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose MDM2 is a negative regulator of the tumor suppressor p53. RO6839921 is an inactive pegylated prodrug of idasanutlin, an MDM2 antagonist, developed for intravenous administration. On cleavage by plasma esterases, the active principle (AP = idasanutlin) is released. This phase 1 study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of RO6839921 in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT02098967). Methods Patients were evaluated on a 5-day dosing schedule every 28 days. Dose escalation used the Bayesian new continual reassessment model. Accelerated dose titration was permitted until grade ≥2 drug-related AEs were observed. The target DLT rate to define the MTD was 16-25%. p53 activation was assessed by measuring macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1 (MIC-1). Results Forty-one patients received 14-120 mg AP; 39 were DLT evaluable. The MTD was 110-mg AP (8% DLT rate), whereas 120-mg AP had a 44% DLT rate. DLTs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and stridor. The most common treatment-related AEs (≥30%) were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and thrombocytopenia. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated rapid conversion of prodrug to AP and an approximately linear and dose-proportional dose-exposure relationship, with a 2-fold increase in exposure between Days 1 and 5 of AP. MIC-1 increases were exposure dependent. Stable disease was observed in 14 patients (34%). Conclusions RO6839921 showed reduced pharmacokinetic exposure variability and a safety profile comparable with that of oral idasanutlin. Although this study indicated that RO6839921 could be administered to patients, the results did not provide sufficient differentiation or improvement in the biologic or safety profile compared with oral idasanutlin to support continued development.

High prevalence of persistent emotional distress in desmoid tumor.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical experience suggests a high prevalence of emotional distress in patients with desmoid tumor (DT). We examine longitudinal Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) scores to estimate prevalence and persistence of distress, and compare cross-sectional data between DT and malignant sarcoma cohorts, to identify predictors of distress. METHODS: Patients with DT completed DART at: T1-diagnosis, T2-during, T3-<6 months, and T4-≥6 months, post-treatment. DART includes patient-reported outcome measures of physical symptoms (ESAS-r), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and social difficulties (SDI-21). Descriptive prevalence and persistence of anxiety, depression, and wellbeing are reported, and mixed model regression analyses determine predictors of distress. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2018, a total of 152 DART screens from 94 patients with DT were completed (T1: n = 44, T2: n = 31, T3: n = 22, T4: n = 55). Patients had a mean age 40 years, 78% were female and DT locations were abdominal wall (48%), extremity (30%), and mesentery (22%). Moderate to severe ESAS-r scores (≥4) persisted at T4 for anxiety (20%), depression (13%), and poor wellbeing (31%). Compared to 402 patients with malignant sarcoma, patients with abdominal wall sited DT reported severe PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores twice as frequently. Abdominal wall location, female sex, history of mood problems, and psychosocial concerns were significant predictors of anxiety, depression, and poor wellbeing in DT. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with DT experience persistently high emotional distress compared to patients with malignant sarcoma. Women with abdominal wall DT, prior mood, and current psychosocial concerns need early attention within multidisciplinary treatment settings to reduce persistent distress.

Effect of Doxorubicin Plus Olaratumab vs Doxorubicin Plus Placebo on Survival in Patients With Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: The ANNOUNCE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have a median overall survival of less than 2 years. In a phase 2 study, an overall survival benefit in this population was observed with the addition of olaratumab to doxorubicin over doxorubicin alone. Objective: To determine the efficacy of doxorubicin plus olaratumab in patients with advanced/metastatic STS. Design, Setting, and Participants: ANNOUNCE was a confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial conducted at 110 sites in 25 countries from September 2015 to December 2018; the final date of follow-up was December 5, 2018. Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and cardiac ejection fraction of 50% or greater. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive doxorubicin, 75 mg/m2 (day 1), combined with olaratumab (n = 258), 20 mg/kg in cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg in subsequent cycles, or placebo (n = 251) on days 1 and 8 for up to 8 21-day cycles, followed by olaratumab/placebo monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dual primary end points were overall survival with doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo in total STS and leiomyosarcoma (LMS) populations. Results: Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.9 years; 58.2% women; 46.0% with LMS), all were included in the primary analysis and had a median length of follow-up of 31 months. No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed between the doxorubicin plus olaratumab group vs the doxorubicin plus placebo group in either population (total STS: hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.84-1.30], P = .69, median overall survival, 20.4 months vs 19.7 months; LMS: hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.69-1.31], P = .76, median overall survival, 21.6 months vs 21.9 months). Adverse events of grade 3 or greater reported in 15% or more of total patients with STS were neutropenia (46.3% vs 49.0%), leukopenia (23.3% vs 23.7%), and febrile neutropenia (17.5% vs 16.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 3 clinical trial of patients with advanced STS, treatment with doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo resulted in no significant difference in overall survival. The findings did not confirm the overall survival benefit observed in the phase 2 trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02451943.

Trabectedin for inoperable or recurrent soft tissue sarcoma in adult patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Trabectedin is an antineoplastic agent used for patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who fail standard-of-care treatment. Real-world data of its performance is scarce. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of trabectedin for patients with advanced STS who were treated at a high-volume sarcoma center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 77 patients treated with trabectedin (24 h infusion q3w) between 01/2005 and 05/2014. Data regarding safety, objective radiological response, progression-free and overall survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Median age at treatment onset was 52y [interquartile range (IQR): 45-61y]. Tumors included leiomyosarcoma (41.6%), liposarcoma (18.2%), and synovial sarcoma (13%). Trabectedin was provided as ≥ third-line chemotherapy in 71.4%. Median number of cycles was 2 (range: 1-17). Dose reduction and treatment delays occurred in 19.5 and 40.3%, respectively. Toxicities occurred in 78%, primarily for neutropenia or elevated liver enzymes. Two patients died secondary to trabectedin-induced rhabdomyolysis. Treatment was discontinued because of disease progression (84.7%), toxicity (10%), and patient preference (5%). Partial response or stable disease occurred in 14.1 and 33.8%, respectively, while 52.1% developed progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 1.3 m (IQR: 0.7-3.5 m) and was significantly higher in patients lacking severe toxicities or progressive disease. Median overall survival was 6.7 m (IQR: 2.3-12.7 m) and was significantly higher in patients with leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma relative to other histologies. CONCLUSIONS: Trabectedin has an acceptable safety profile as an anti-tumor agent. Our data further suggest there may be some benefit in using trabectedin particularly in patients with leiomyo- or liposarcoma who failed standard-of-care agents.

Pharmacokinetic assessment of dacomitinib (pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA SCCHN) following administration through a gastrostomy feeding tube (GT).

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is an irreversible oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumor activity demonstrated in patients with recurrent/metastatic (RM) SCCHN. A Phase I trial of dacomitinib with standard therapy in LA SCCHN is ongoing (NCT01737008). As enteral feeding is needed for many SCCHN patients, this study investigated the PK properties of dacomitinib when administered via GT (NCT01484847). Since patients with GT are difficult to recruit, this study also determined the feasibility of PK assessments using a unique design in LA SCCHN patients with GT, by giving a single dose of drug during their radiotherapy (co-administration with chemotherapy avoided). METHODS: Eligible patients were given a single dose of crushed dacomitinib at 45 mg in water suspension via GT. All doses were administered in fasting state and supine position. PK samples were drawn prior to dose (t = 0), 30 min and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 96, 144, 168, 192 and 216 hrs post-dose, and analyzed by HPLC-MS/MS. PK parameters (mean [CV%]) of this study were compared with those of dacomitinib given orally using Student t test. RESULTS: Six patients with LA SCCHN patients were enrolled. The median age of patients was 54 years. Two different types of GT were used: 14 F Cope-loop tube (n = 3), 20 F PEG/disc retention tube (n = 3). PK study showed t1/2 of 58 h, Cmax of 17 ng/ml, Tmax of 8 h, AUC0-inf of 1185 ng*hr/ml, Vd/F of 3310 L and CL/F of 41 L/hr. CONCLUSION: Compared with oral dosing of intact immediate release (IR) tablets, GT administration resulted in 34 % reduction in Cmax and 33-44 % decrease in AUC (all p <0.05) (Jänne et al., Clin Cancer Res 2011). Such differences were not detected when compared with the PK properties of dacomitinib administered orally in aqueous suspension (Bello et al., Cancer Chemother Pharm 2013). These differences may be attributed to aqueous suspension of dacomitinib. Caution should be taken with GT administration of orally active small molecule targeted therapy. This study also demonstrated that PK trials in GT patients are feasible using novel designs.

Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Once-Weekly Split-Dose Selinexor in Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Results of the Phase Ib METSSAR Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The approved dose of Selinexor, 60 mg twice-weekly, is associated with several clinically relevant toxicities. Preclinical studies show that a sustained-release formulation of selinexor results in a lower toxicity profile. OBJECTIVE: The phase 1b METSSAR trial assessed the safety and tolerability of an alternative dosing schedule of selinexor (to mimic the sustained-release formulation) in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Selinexor was administered in a split-dose schedule (40 mg, 20 mg, 20 mg in the morning, afternoon, and evening, respectively) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle, until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Secondary objectives were EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life (QoL) assessment, and preliminary efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty patients with 12 STS subtypes were enrolled and received a median of four cycles of treatment. There were no grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. Dysgeusia, nausea, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia were the most common grade ≤ 2 TRAEs. No treatments were discontinued due to TRAE, but four patients (20%) required dose reduction. Median change in global health status (GHS) score from baseline to cycle 2 (by QLQ-C30 v3.0) was - 8.33, and only 39% of patients reported a clinically meaningful decline in GHS score (≥ 10 points). Median symptom scale scores on treatment were increased for fatigue (+12.35), nausea/vomiting (+18.52), and anorexia (+16.67), but reduced for pain (- 3.70). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval 1.9-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose once-weekly selinexor was reasonably well tolerated in this heterogeneous group of advanced STS patients with a better, or at least similar, clinician- and patient-reported toxicity profile compared to the standard dosing regimen. Further clinical evaluation is warranted, as better dose delivery can lead to improved antitumor efficacy.

Real-word experience of pazopanib and sorafenib in patients with desmoid tumors: A CanSaRCC multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib and pazopanib, two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), are widely used in patients with progressive symptomatic desmoid tumors (DT). Limited real-word data is available on long-term outcomes of patients who progressed on, stopped, or continued TKIs. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with DTs and treated with sorafenib or pazopanib between 2011 and 2022 at 11 institutions were reviewed. Patient history, response to therapy and toxicity were recorded. Statistical analyses utilized Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. RESULTS: 142 patients with DT treated with sorafenib (n = 126, 88.7 %) or pazopanib (n = 16, 11.3 %) were analyzed. The median treatment duration was 10.8 months (range: 0.07- 73.9). The overall response rate and the disease control rate were 26.0 % and 95.1 %, respectively. The median tumor shrinkage was - 8.5 % (range -100.0 %- +72.5 %). Among responders, the median time to an objective response was 15.2 months (range: 1.1 to 33.1). The 1-year and 2-year progression-free survival rates were 82 % and 80 %. Dose reductions were necessary in 34 (23.9 %) patients. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 36 (25.4 %) patients. On the last follow-up, 55 (38.7 %) patients continued treatment. Treatment discontinuation (n = 85, 59.9 %) was mainly for toxicity (n = 35, 45.9 %) or radiological or clinical progression (n = 30, 35.3 %). For the entire cohort, 36 (25.4 %) patients required subsequent treatment. In the 32 responders, only 1 (3.1 %) patient required a subsequent treatment. In patients who discontinued TKI, 25 (44.6 %) with stable disease received subsequent treatment compared to 0 (0.0 %) of responders. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study represents the largest cohort of DT patients treated with sorafenib or pazopanib to date. Discontinuation of treatment in responders is safe. The optimal treatment duration in patients with stable disease remains to be defined.

Early Changes in Tumor-Naive Cell-Free Methylomes and Fragmentomes Predict Outcomes in Pembrolizumab-Treated Solid Tumors.

Early kinetics of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma predict response to pembrolizumab but typically requires sequencing of matched tumor tissue or fixed gene panels. We analyzed genome-wide methylation and fragment-length profiles using cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq) in 204 plasma samples from 87 patients before and during treatment with pembrolizumab from a pan-cancer phase II investigator-initiated trial (INSPIRE). We trained a pan-cancer methylation signature using independent methylation array data from The Cancer Genome Atlas to quantify cancer-specific methylation (CSM) and fragment-length score (FLS) for each sample. CSM and FLS are strongly correlated with tumor-informed ctDNA levels. Early kinetics of CSM predict overall survival and progression-free survival, independently of tumor type, PD-L1, and tumor mutation burden. Early kinetics of FLS are associated with overall survival independently of CSM. Our tumor-naïve mutation-agnostic ctDNA approach integrating methylomics and fragmentomics could predict outcomes in patients treated with pembrolizumab. SIGNIFICANCE: Analysis of methylation and fragment length in plasma using cfMeDIP-seq provides a tumor-naive approach to measure ctDNA with results comparable with a tumor-informed bespoke ctDNA. Early kinetics within the first weeks of treatment in methylation and fragment quantity can predict outcomes with pembrolizumab in patients with various advanced solid tumors. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 897.

Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: a cost-consequence analysis using linked administrative data.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care. Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics. Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers. Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).